AMNESTY ATTACKS SWAZI JUSTICE

It added the
arrests were, ‘another shocking example of the southern African kingdom’s intolerance
of freedom of expression’.

Amnesty has declared
both men ‘prisoners of conscience’.

Bheki Makhubu, editor of Swaziland’s monthly news magazine The Nation and human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko are being
held at Sidwashini Remand Prison in Mbabane, after ‘highly irregular legal
proceedings’.

Amnesty reported, ‘They were arbitrarily arrested under defective
warrants, denied access to their lawyers and remanded in custody after summary
proceedings held behind closed doors.’

Mary Rayner, researcher on Swaziland at Amnesty International, said in a
statement, ‘These arbitrary arrests and highly irregular legal proceedings
amount to judicial retribution rather than justice being delivered, and are
further evidence of Swaziland’s intolerance of freedom of expression. It
violates international human rights standards and has no basis in Swaziland’s
domestic law.’

She added, ‘We consider Bhekithemba Makhubu and Thulani Maseko to be
prisoners of conscience, arrested and detained merely for exercising their
right to freedom of expression. The Swaziland authorities must release them immediately
and unconditionally.’

The two men are accused of contempt
of court by writing articles published in the Nation in February and March 2014 that criticised the circumstances
surrounding the case of Chief Government Vehicle Inspector, Bhantshana
Gwebu. Gwebu had been arrested and charged with contempt of court after he
arrested a driver of High Court Judge Esther Ota. Gwebu spent nine days at the
Sidwashini Correctional facility before he was released on E15,000 (US$1,500) bail.

Amnesty reported, ‘The warrant used to arrest them, issued by
Swaziland’s Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi, apparently subverted the normal
legal process. The police at Mbabane police station, where the men were
initially detained prior to their appearance before the Chief Justice, also
appear to have been acting under instructions when they denied their lawyers
access.

‘Normal criminal procedure dictates the men should have then appeared
before a magistrate. Instead, they were taken to the Chief Justice’s chambers
for what turned out to be summary proceedings. Their lawyers were not permitted
to make any submissions and the Chief Justice went on to remand them in custody
without the opportunity to apply for bail.

‘It’s clear that the Chief Justice has a prevailing conflict of interest
in this case, and the Swaziland authorities have no grounds on which to hold
these men, other than apparent vindictiveness by a powerful public official.’